Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti v. The State of Telangana

The Station House Officer, Nacharam P.S., Rachakonda, Telangana State- 3 4. Smt. Vidya Pasupuleti, w/o Pavan Kumar, Aged about 26 Yrs., Occ Household, R/o Flat No.126, Block No.5, Janapriya Township, lilallapur, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District. Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be - pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 and his subordinates repeatedly making phone calls to the Petitioner and harassing him causing threats to the Petitioner and his family members under the influence of Respondent No. 4 and others, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and u nco n stitutiona I and Violative of articles 14,21 and 22 of lhe Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to interfere in family disputes between the petitioner and the Respondent No.4. i ! ! A i I I ) I t I t i I I I r.A. NO :1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 4171 OF 20171 Petition unde:r Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the t in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotr direct the Responc ents No.3 not to harass and defame ll family members bv deputing police personnel to the horr insisting him [o appear in Police Station and to give proper evidence available on record, to the Crime No.353/201 ; rcu mstances stated rnav be pleased to : petitioner and his e of Petitroner and l is posa i, as per the of Nacharam P.S., pending disposal ot the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MARUTI RAO SRUNGARAI' I Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI M.SRINIVAS, A( P FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MUSUKU ARAVIND EJA The Court made the following: ORDER l : I I I I I i I I I ! THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No. 3507 OF 2017 ORDER: ThisWritPetitionisfiledunderArticle226oftheConstitutionof lndia seeking the following relief "...1o issue a writ, order or direction more paiicularly one tn the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the actrcn of the respondent No.3 and his subordinates repealedly making phone calts to the Petitioner and harassing him causing threats to the Petitioner and his family members under the influence of Respondent No. 4 and ofhers, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutionat and Viotative of afticles 14, 21 and 22 ol the Constitution of lnclia and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to interlere in family drspules between the petitioner and the Respondent No.4-.."

2. Heard Mr.Maruti Rao Srungarapu, learned counsel for the petitionerandMr.M.Srinivas,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr'Musuku Aravind Teja, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed alleging that respondent No 3 and his subordinates have been repeatedly harassing the petitioner and his family members through phone calls and other means, allegedly acting under the influence of respondent No.4. lt is submitted that this Court, by an interim order dated 09.02.2017, having regard to the pleadings and allegations made, directed respondents No'3 and 4 not to harass I 2 *\ the petitioner in connection with the investigation in t rime No.353 of

2015. Learned counsel therefore prays that appro6)r ate and further directions be issued to ensure compliance with the r; id order and to safeguard the petitioner from any form of harassment.

4. Learne,l Assistant Government Pleader for Horr :, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, submits that the investigation r Crime No 353 of 2015 culm nated in the filing of a charge sheet, v hich was taken cognizance of as C.C. No.34 of 2018 on the file or the learned lV Additional Metropoiltan Magistrate, Cyberabad. He lurther submits that, during the pendency of the said proceedings, I re parties have amicably settled their disputes, and in conseque r ;e thereof, the offences werer compounded before the competent Cc rrt. Hence, it is submitted that nothing further survives for adjudicatirl rin the present petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial r,spondent No.4 also confirms that the disputes between the petitione- rnd respondent No.4 have been amicably settled, and that both parti : ; are now living separately. lt is further submitted that there are no su t sisting disputes or pending proceedings between them.

6. I have perused the material available on record i t I I I 3

7. Having regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner and the developments reported by both the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent, it is evident that the dispute between the parties which formed the subject matter of Crime No 353 of 2015' has been amicably resolved and that the offences therein have been compounded in accordance with law. Once the offences have been compounded and no further proceedings are pending between the parties' no further orders are warranted in this petition B Accordingly, the petition stands closed' as nothing further survives for consideration. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// /. T.SRINI VA IST EDDY TRAR EGtS SECTION OFFIGER To,

1. 2 3 One C C to SRI MARUTI RAO SRUNGARAPU' One CC to SRl MUSUKU ARAVIND TEJA' Advoca GP FOR HOME' High Coud for th Two CCs to Hvderabad [OUT] A te [OPUCI o e Pucl e State of Telangana at

4. Two CD CoPies BSR HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER WP.No.3507 of 2017 to ; 1,,r s o "t ? t-a [),)S z * ) * CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS C4,, Pry €